RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pets, pet owners (referred to as clients in veterinary medicine and throughout this article), veterinarians, and community pharmacies may all benefit from veterinary compounding services provided in community pharmacies, but the benefits of this service are not well-documented in the literature. OBJECTIVES: This study identified perceived benefits and barriers and evaluated the need for veterinary compounding services in community pharmacies; it also evaluated current business practices related to veterinary compounding services. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to three groups: 1) clients who filled a pet prescription at a study pharmacy, 2) clients who had not filled pet prescriptions, and 3) local veterinarians. Eligible participants were 18 or older; clients must have owned a pet in the past five years. The surveys collected demographic information and assessed benefits, barriers, need, and business practices regarding veterinary compounding services. Demographics were evaluated through descriptive statistics. Responses to Likert-scale items were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative responses were assessed for emerging themes. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen clients and 15 veterinarians participated in the study. Seventy-two of 116 clients (62%) and eight of 10 veterinarians (80%) agreed that clients would benefit from veterinary compounds provided in community pharmacies. Only 40% of veterinarians agreed that community pharmacists have the knowledge to compound pet medications, compared to 67% of clients (P=0.010). Similarly, 47% of veterinarians agreed that community pharmacists have the skills to compound pet medications, compared to 72% of clients (P=0.016). Forty-eight of 118 clients (41%) would travel 10 miles or more out of their way for veterinary compounding services at community pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: This study assessed client and veterinarian perceptions of veterinary compounding service benefits, barriers, and need in community pharmacies. Clients identified more opportunities for veterinary compounding services in community pharmacies when compared to veterinarians. Both groups identified a need for veterinary compounding services and agreed community pharmacies providing these services would benefit pets and clients.
RESUMEN
Background: Pets, pet owners (referred to as clients in veterinary medicine and throughout this article), veterinarians, and community pharmacies may all benefit from veterinary compounding services provided in community pharmacies, but the benefits of this service are not well-documented in the literature. Objectives: This study identified perceived benefits and barriers and evaluated the need for veterinary compounding services in community pharmacies; it also evaluated current business practices related to veterinary compounding services. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to three groups: 1) clients who filled a pet prescription at a study pharmacy, 2) clients who had not filled pet prescriptions, and 3) local veterinarians. Eligible participants were 18 or older; clients must have owned a pet in the past five years. The surveys collected demographic information and assessed benefits, barriers, need, and business practices regarding veterinary compounding services. Demographics were evaluated through descriptive statistics. Responses to Likert-scale items were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative responses were assessed for emerging themes. Results: One hundred eighteen clients and 15 veterinarians participated in the study. Seventy-two of 116 clients (62%) and eight of 10 veterinarians (80%) agreed that clients would benefit from veterinary compounds provided in community pharmacies. Only 40% of veterinarians agreed that community pharmacists have the knowledge to compound pet medications, compared to 67% of clients (P=0.010). Similarly, 47% of veterinarians agreed that community pharmacists have the skills to compound pet medications, compared to 72% of clients (P=0.016). Forty-eight of 118 clients (41%) would travel 10 miles or more out of their way for veterinary compounding services at community pharmacies. Conclusions: This study assessed client and veterinarian perceptions of veterinary compounding service benefits, barriers, and need in community pharmacies. Clients identified more opportunities for veterinary compounding services in community pharmacies when compared to veterinarians. Both groups identified a need for veterinary compounding services and agreed community pharmacies providing these services would benefit pets and clients
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Enfermedades de los Animales/tratamiento farmacológico , Servicios Farmacéuticos/tendencias , Drogas Veterinarias/provisión & distribución , Servicios Comunitarios de Farmacia/organización & administración , Vínculo Humano-Animal , Evaluación de Necesidades/estadística & datos numéricos , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Assess patients' and caregivers' perceptions of comprehensive medication review (CMR) offers and when a CMR is needed, follow-up actions performed after the CMR, and recall of pharmacists' recommendations made during CMRs. METHODS: A 22-item cross-sectional survey with multiple response, 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), yes/no, and free response prompts was administered to patients and caregivers who completed a CMR between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. Surveys were administered to study participants by telephone or by mail if they were not reachable by telephone. RESULTS: Eighty of 141 surveys were completed (57%). Respondents were mostly white, female, and age 65 years or older, with an annual income less than $25,000. Respondents indicated that they were likely to accept CMR offers from pharmacists or pharmacy technicians they know (100% and 94%, respectively) and by telephone call (90%). Respondents strongly agreed that CMRs should be completed annually and when initiating medication for a new diagnosis (median = 5; interquartile range, 3-5). Most respondents received at least 1 recommendation (90%), recalled receiving their CMR summary (66%), and discussed their CMR with their prescribers (67%). Respondents who reported receiving a pharmacist recommendation during their CMR were more likely to strongly agree they should have an annual CMR (P = 0.009). Accurate recall of recommendations made during CMRs was 54%. General health and medication recommendations were significantly associated with respondents' recall of recommendations (P = 0.011 and P = 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients and caregivers who received a CMR stated that they are likely to accept future CMR offers from a pharmacist or technician with whom they are familiar, and more patients and caregivers would accept offers by telephone than by other methods. In addition, a newly diagnosed condition presents an opportunity for strategic CMR appointment offers. Although pharmacists regularly made therapy interventions during CMRs, it is important to ensure that CMR recipients have clear instructions for follow-up with their prescribers.
Asunto(s)
Administración del Tratamiento Farmacológico/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Actitud , Cuidadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicios Comunitarios de Farmacia/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Farmacéuticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Rol Profesional , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Teléfono/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of pharmacist-conducted, home-based comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) on drug therapy problems (DTPs) in geriatric patients. DESIGN: Pre-/postintervention study. SETTING: Grocery store chain affiliated with three independent living facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five older adults using pharmacy delivery services for at least three chronic medications. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist conducted a home-based CMR for each participant. DTPs were identified across 13 categories. Patients received a medication action plan post-CMR. A follow-up patient phone call was completed two weeks following the appointment. Patient profiles were reviewed for three months postintervention for changes in DTPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in DTPs per patient and changes in five Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services triple-weighted Star Rating performance measures. RESULTS: The average DTPs identified per patient were reduced from 3.4 ± 2.06 to 1.48 ± 1.68 (P < 0.05) DTPs three months postintervention. The most common categories identified-nonadherence and incorrect administration/ technique-were significantly reduced (P = 0.012 and P = 0.010, respectively). One Star Rating performance measure significantly improved: 68% of patients taking hypertension medications were adherent at baseline and 91% were adherent three months post-CMR (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-provided, home-based CMRs reduced the average number of DTPs per patient. The most common categories of DTPs identified-nonadherence and incorrect administration/technique-were reduced postintervention.